The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
... that physical applications of Euclidean minimum spanning trees range in scale from the particles in bubble chambers to the dark matter halos of galaxies? Source: Bubble chamber: Zahn, C. T. (1973), "Using the minimum spanning tree to recognize dotted and dashed curves", 1st International Computing Symposium, Davos, Switzerland, 4–7 September 1973, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1050916; dark matter halos: March, William B.; Ram, Parikshit; Gray, Alexander G. (2010), "Fast Euclidean minimum spanning tree: algorithm, analysis, and applications", in Rao, Bharat; Krishnapuram, Balaji; Tomkins, Andrew; Yang, Qiang (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Washington, DC, USA, July 25-28, 2010, pp. 603–612, https://doi.org/10.1145/1835804.1835882
ALT1: ... that in a Euclidean minimum spanning tree of a given dimension, the number of line segments that can meet at a point equals the kissing number of spheres of that dimension? Source: Robins, G.; Salowe, J. S. (1995), "Low-degree minimum spanning trees", Discrete & Computational Geometry, 14 (2): 151–165, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02570700
Overall: Recent GA, and it looks like the review was thorough enough. I've had a little trouble of verifying the sourcing requirements, since some paragraphs are "interrupted" by formulae; but I am confident enough that all information has been referenced approrpiately. I have a strong preference for ALT0, since although the word "kissing" in ALT1 might interested a broader audience, its overall appeal is more to the scientist than to the average reader. If "physical" in the original was to be dropped for an alternate hook, I could also see "electrical grid planning" serving as an intermediate-scale example of applications.
But ALT0 is great as it is, so approve. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I just realized I meant to ask about the QPQs, but forgot. @David Eppstein: Why did you provide two? This isn't a double nomination. Did you mean to "use up" both to reduce the backlog? Reviews can be retained for later use as a QPQ, so you needn't do this. But if you want, I guess you can "waste" one review. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Did you know, Rule 5, QPQ requirement: "The community may also choose to activate an "unreviewed backlog mode"; when active, editors who have nominated more than twenty articles are required to provide an extra QPQ in every nomination": I have chosen to act as if this is activated, because to me the backlog looks large, even though I think it may not officially be required at this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thank you, then, for being so pro-active at preventing a backlog! –LordPeterII (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Recent GA, and it looks like the review was thorough enough. I've had a little trouble of verifying the sourcing requirements, since some paragraphs are "interrupted" by formulae; but I am confident enough that all information has been referenced approrpiately. I have a strong preference for ALT0, since although the word "kissing" in ALT1 might interested a broader audience, its overall appeal is more to the scientist than to the average reader. If "physical" in the original was to be dropped for an alternate hook, I could also see "electrical grid planning" serving as an intermediate-scale example of applications.
But ALT0 is great as it is, so approve. –LordPeterII (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)